GOVT 2301 Civil Rights and the Equal Protection Clause Civil Rights
Legal guarantees that citizens are entitled to make on government. Distinct from Civil Liberties
Protections from the arbitrary use of governmental power Legislative Action
Executive Action Judicial Action Legislative Action
Civil Rights Acts A variety of Civil Rights Acts have been passed over American history. Most dating back to the 19th Century were weak and unenforceable. Some were found unconstitutional or were watered down by the Supreme Court. Civil Rights Act of 1964
Most significant Act. Outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Based on broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. Lawsuits could also be filed by private individuals. Placed limitations
on state sovereignty
Executive Action
Executive Orders
An order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Hiring practices
Affirmative Action Since the Federal Government has a large workforce, the executive branch has been able to influence civil rights policy in its hiring practices Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
The Agency responsible for ensuring that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination. Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission
the branch of the U.S. government that enforces equal opportunity laws in workplaces. The origins of these agencies trace back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and World War II when he signed Executive Order 8802, preventing discrimination based on race by government contractors. Executive Order 10479:
Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 13, 1953 establishing the anti-discrimination Committee on Government Contracts. Established the concept of Equal Employment Opportunity. Executive Order 11246
An executive order issued by Lyndon Johnson. It"prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Contractors are also required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
Executive Order 11375
Issued by President Richard Nixon in 1968. Added sex discrimination to OFCCP’s mandate. Judicial Action
Court Decisions The most flexible and ongoing influence on civil rights policy is in how the court interprets equal protection, and how they determine whether the clause has been unreasonably violated. When is unequal protection warranted and when is it not? Sources of Concept of Civil Rights:
Grant by the King: Magna Carta
Natural Rights: Declaration of Independence In the former, rights are granted by a monarch, in the later rights are considered innate. The Declaration of Independence can be considered to be a civil rights document. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But this is not a legal guarantee.
There was no legal guarantee
of civil rights until
the 14th Amendment The has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property," without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws. Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Key Phrase:
Equal Protection of the Laws Overruled Scott v. Sanford:
African-Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. A response to Black Codes created in various states after the Civil War. These were intended to retain a secondary status for the recently freed slaves. Areas of unequal protection:
Property
Contracts
Uneven Sentences
The amendment was intended to provide general protections for groups unlikely to be supported in the states.
From Findlaw Passed only because southern states had not been readmitted to Congress, and ratification was made a condition of re-entry. Driven by Radical Republicans in the Congress
John Bingham
Charles Sumner
Thaddeus Stevens Not accepted by Southern States.
Jim Crow and Segregated Facilities established to negate the amendment’s impact. The Supreme Court did not interpret the Equal Protection Clause as its authors intended. Some Supreme Court decisions
supported equal protection:
Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), soon after the end of Reconstruction. A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of [the defendant's] race." Some did not: The Civil Rights Cases
The bills outlawed segregation in “inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement.” These were declared unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to private entities.
The dissent argued that these were quasi-public establishments often sanctioned by state licenses.
Public and private facilities are viewed differently. But what if a private entity provides a public service, or is a public accommodation? What is a fully private entity? Plessy v. Ferguson
Racial Segregation in public transportation upheld. Promotes public order. Facilities fundamentally equal. Separate but Equal Doctrine
As long as the service or facility is fundamentally equal, it does not violate the 14th Amendment. Post Plessy
Legal strategy developed by the NAACP to overturn the doctrine. A variety of cases were taken to the court with the intent of demonstrating that the Separate but Equal Doctrine was not practical. Sweatt v Painter: TSU Law School not equal to UT Law School.
Set stage for Brown v Board:
Separation inherently unequal Unequal treatment
could not be justified.
This is the fundamental issue
concerning discrimination. Is there a strong reason why a distinction can be made, by law, between people based on some criteria?
What justifies unequal treatment? Areas of discrimination:
transportation
access to public accommodations
education
housing
employment / pay
marriage
What can justify unequal
treatment in each area? Principal Criteria
Religion
Race
Citizenship
Gender
Age
Disability
Sexual Orientation Not all criteria are
considered in the same way. Footnote Four
United States v.
Carolene Products Co.
Contains a justification for the development of the concept of strict scrutiny.
Footnote Four outlines a higher level of judicial scrutiny for legislation that met certain conditions:
1 – The rule, on its face, violates a provision of the Constitution
(facial challenge). 2 – The rule attempts to distort or rig the political process. 3 – The rule discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process. Suspect Classifications
A status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny. Three rules developed by the court to determine what level of proof justifies unequal treatment
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Applied to suspect classifications. Intermediate Scrutiny
Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means. Rational Basis
Is the governmental action at issue a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government? Applying the
Equal Protection Clause
Two issues: 1. Are there legitimate reasons to continue to make distinctions between certain groups? What are those reasons and in what contexts? 2. How does one prove unlawful discrimination occurred? How do we know if a law is in fact discriminatory? Discriminatory Intent
Disparate Impact Discriminatory Intent
Actions taken with an intent to treat a group adversely affected differently. Disparate Impact
A policy that does not intend to discriminate but results in outcomes that have “disparate racial consequences.” Policies with a disparate impact can be treated the same as those with discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) that (1) if an employer's policy has disparate racial consequences, and (2) if the employer cannot give a reasonable justification for such a policy on grounds of "business necessity," then the employer's policy violates Title VII Problem: How to determine whether disparate impact reveals a clever way to disguise discriminatory intent? Specific Cases demonstrating the application of strict and intermediate and the rational basis test. Race
Strict Scrutiny
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Georgia Separation creates a feeling of inferiority Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. – Oyez Project Alienage Gender
Intermediate Scrutiny
United States v. Virginia
Nguyen v. INS Is 8 USC section 1409(a)'s statutory distinction, which imposes different requirements for a child's acquisition of citizenship depending upon whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "[section 1409(a)] is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection." "For a gender-based classification to withstand equal protection scrutiny, it must be established 'at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,' legitimization, a declaration of paternity under oath by the father, or a court order of paternity. The first such interest is the importance of assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists. The mother’s relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth. However, a father need not be present at the birth, and his presence is not incontrovertible proof of fatherhood. Disabilities
Rational Basis Test
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally retarded. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance. Did the denial of the permit violate the Equal Protection rights of Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and its potential residents? In a unanimous judgment, the Court held that the denial of the special use permit to Cleburne Living Centers, Inc. was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a "quasi-suspect class," it nevertheless found that the "rational relation" test for legislative action provided sufficient protection against invidious discrimination. Although in 1985 the court in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. held mentally retarded persons were deemed to be subject to a "rational basis" test, in invalidating seemingly rational zoning laws and land use restrictions, many assert that the court introduced an "enhanced" rational basis test that required the state to show more than a facially valid law and instead to balance the community's needs against the needs of the disabled. Age
Rational Basis
Vance v. Bradley Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 required that members of the Foreign Service retirement system retire at 60. No mandatory retirement age was specified for employees covered by the Civil Service retirement system. Holbrook Bradley, a member of the Foreign Service retirement system, challenged the statute in United States District Court for the District of Columbia and prevailed. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Did Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 violate the Equal Protection component of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment? No. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, the Court emphasized the distinction between the Civil Service and Foreign Service, and the "special attention" paid to the Foreign Service by Congress. The Court interpreted the purpose of Section 632 to be the encouragement of the "highest performance in the ranks of the Foreign Service by assuring that opportunities for promotion would be available," a legitimate interest that justified the distinction. The Court also recognized the possibility that service in the Foreign Service would be more rigorous than service in the Civil Service. Given that possibility, Congress had a "reasonable basis" for enacting the statute, Sexual Orientation
Still unknown
Lawrence v. Texas Problem area:
Affirmative Action Internal Contradiction:
In order to address racial disparity, race is often taken into consideration. This violates the Equal Protection Clause. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools? No. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . The District's goal of preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity.'" The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means.
Civil Rights and the
Equal Protection Clause
Civil Rights
Legal guarantees that citizens are entitled to make on government.
Distinct from Civil Liberties
Protections from the arbitrary use of governmental power
Legislative Action
Executive Action
Judicial Action
Legislative Action
Civil Rights Acts
A variety of Civil Rights Acts have been passed over American history. Most dating back to the 19th Century were weak and unenforceable. Some were found unconstitutional or were watered down by the Supreme Court.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Most significant Act. Outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Based on broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
It authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. Lawsuits could also be filed by private individuals.
Placed limitations
on state sovereignty
Executive Action
Executive Orders
An order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. usually to help direct the operation of executive officers.
Hiring practices
Affirmative Action
Since the Federal Government has a large workforce, the executive branch has been able to influence civil rights policy in its hiring practices
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
The Agency responsible for ensuring that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination.
Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission
the branch of the U.S. government that enforces equal opportunity laws in workplaces.
The origins of these agencies trace back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and World War II when he signed Executive Order 8802, preventing discrimination based on race by government contractors.
Executive Order 10479:
Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 13, 1953 establishing the anti-discrimination Committee on Government Contracts. Established the concept of Equal Employment Opportunity.
Executive Order 11246
An executive order issued by Lyndon Johnson. It "prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Contractors are also required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
Executive Order 11375
Issued by President Richard Nixon in 1968. Added sex discrimination to OFCCP’s mandate.
Judicial Action
Court Decisions
The most flexible and ongoing influence on civil rights policy is in how the court interprets equal protection, and how they determine whether the clause has been unreasonably violated.
When is unequal protection warranted and when is it not?
Sources of Concept of Civil Rights:
Grant by the King: Magna Carta
Natural Rights: Declaration of Independence
In the former, rights are granted by a monarch, in the later rights are considered innate.
The Declaration of Independence can be considered to be a civil rights document.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But this is not a legal guarantee.
There was no legal guarantee
of civil rights until
the 14th Amendment
The has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property," without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws.
Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Key Phrase:
Equal Protection of the Laws
Overruled Scott v. Sanford:
African-Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
A response to Black Codes created in various states after the Civil War. These were intended to retain a secondary status for the recently freed slaves.
Areas of unequal protection:
Property
Contracts
Uneven Sentences
The amendment was intended to provide general protections for groups unlikely to be supported in the states.
From Findlaw
Passed only because southern states had not been readmitted to Congress, and ratification was made a condition of re-entry.
Driven by Radical Republicans in the Congress
John Bingham
Charles Sumner
Thaddeus Stevens
Not accepted by Southern States.
Jim Crow and Segregated Facilities established to negate the amendment’s impact.
The Supreme Court did not interpret the Equal Protection Clause as its authors intended.
Some Supreme Court decisions
supported equal protection:
Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), soon after the end of Reconstruction. A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of [the defendant's] race."
Some did not: The Civil Rights Cases
The bills outlawed segregation in “inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement.” These were declared unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to private entities.
The dissent argued that these were quasi-public establishments often sanctioned by state licenses.
Public and private facilities are viewed differently. But what if a private entity provides a public service, or is a public accommodation? What is a fully private entity?
Plessy v. Ferguson
Racial Segregation in public transportation upheld. Promotes public order. Facilities fundamentally equal.
Separate but Equal Doctrine
As long as the service or facility is fundamentally equal, it does not violate the 14th Amendment.
Post Plessy
Legal strategy developed by the NAACP to overturn the doctrine. A variety of cases were taken to the court with the intent of demonstrating that the Separate but Equal Doctrine was not practical.
Sweatt v Painter: TSU Law School not equal to UT Law School.
Set stage for Brown v Board:
Separation inherently unequal
Unequal treatment
could not be justified.
This is the fundamental issue
concerning discrimination.
Is there a strong reason why a distinction can be made, by law, between people based on some criteria?
What justifies unequal treatment?
Areas of discrimination:
transportation
access to public accommodations
education
housing
employment / pay
marriage
What can justify unequal
treatment in each area?
Principal Criteria
Religion
Race
Citizenship
Gender
Age
Disability
Sexual Orientation
Not all criteria are
considered in the same way.
Footnote Four
United States v.
Carolene Products Co.
Contains a justification for the development of the concept of strict scrutiny.
Footnote Four outlines a higher level of judicial scrutiny for legislation that met certain conditions:
1 – The rule, on its face, violates a provision of the Constitution
(facial challenge).
2 – The rule attempts to distort or rig the political process.
3 – The rule discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.
Suspect Classifications
A status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny.
Three rules developed by the court to determine what level of proof justifies unequal treatment
Strict Scrutiny
Intermediate Scrutiny
Rational Basis
Strict Scrutiny
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Applied to suspect classifications.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means.
Rational Basis
Is the governmental action at issue a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government?
Applying the
Equal Protection Clause
Two issues:
1. Are there legitimate reasons to continue to make distinctions between certain groups? What are those reasons and in what contexts?
2. How does one prove unlawful discrimination occurred? How do we know if a law is in fact discriminatory?
Discriminatory Intent
Disparate Impact
Discriminatory Intent
Actions taken with an intent to treat a group adversely affected differently.
Disparate Impact
A policy that does not intend to discriminate but results in outcomes that have “disparate racial consequences.”
Policies with a disparate impact can be treated the same as those with discriminatory intent.
The Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) that (1) if an employer's policy has disparate racial consequences, and (2) if the employer cannot give a reasonable justification for such a policy on grounds of "business necessity," then the employer's policy violates Title VII
Problem: How to determine whether disparate impact reveals a clever way to disguise discriminatory intent?
Specific Cases demonstrating the application of strict and intermediate and the rational basis test.
Race
Strict Scrutiny
Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Georgia
Separation creates a feeling of inferiority
Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. – Oyez Project
Alienage
Gender
Intermediate Scrutiny
United States v. Virginia
Nguyen v. INS
Is 8 USC section 1409(a)'s statutory distinction, which imposes different requirements for a child's acquisition of citizenship depending upon whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "[section 1409(a)] is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection." "For a gender-based classification to withstand equal protection scrutiny, it must be established 'at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,'
legitimization, a declaration of paternity under oath by the father, or a court order of paternity.
The first such interest is the importance of assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists. The mother’s relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth. However, a father need not be present at the birth, and his presence is not incontrovertible proof of fatherhood.
Disabilities
Rational Basis Test
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally retarded. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance.
Did the denial of the permit violate the Equal Protection rights of Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and its potential residents?
In a unanimous judgment, the Court held that the denial of the special use permit to Cleburne Living Centers, Inc. was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a "quasi-suspect class," it nevertheless found that the "rational relation" test for legislative action provided sufficient protection against invidious discrimination.
Although in 1985 the court in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. held mentally retarded persons were deemed to be subject to a "rational basis" test, in invalidating seemingly rational zoning laws and land use restrictions, many assert that the court introduced an "enhanced" rational basis test that required the state to show more than a facially valid law and instead to balance the community's needs against the needs of the disabled.
Age
Rational Basis
Vance v. Bradley
Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 required that members of the Foreign Service retirement system retire at 60. No mandatory retirement age was specified for employees covered by the Civil Service retirement system. Holbrook Bradley, a member of the Foreign Service retirement system, challenged the statute in United States District Court for the District of Columbia and prevailed. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Did Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 violate the Equal Protection component of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
No. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, the Court emphasized the distinction between the Civil Service and Foreign Service, and the "special attention" paid to the Foreign Service by Congress. The Court interpreted the purpose of Section 632 to be the encouragement of the "highest performance in the ranks of the Foreign Service by assuring that opportunities for promotion would be available," a legitimate interest that justified the distinction. The Court also recognized the possibility that service in the Foreign Service would be more rigorous than service in the Civil Service. Given that possibility, Congress had a "reasonable basis" for enacting the statute,
Sexual Orientation
Still unknown
Lawrence v. Texas
Problem area:
Affirmative Action
Internal Contradiction:
In order to address racial disparity, race is often taken into consideration. This violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal.
Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools?
No. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . The District's goal of preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity.'" The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means.